[ghusto]

> a company that has the power to shift policy in favor of human rights

Well you're _technically_ right; they do indeed have that power. However, it sounds like you're suggesting they are using that power _to_ shift policy in favor of human rights (emphasis is of importance).

Whilst I can't prove that their intention has nothing to do with human rights, it's only in the same way that I can't prove the last U.S. invasion of Iraq wasn't about protecting the world from weapons of mass destruction.

It is patently obvious to me that this is a business decision fuelled by the drive to keep profits up, that just happens to coincide with happily with a PR friendly action. It's great that they're doing this, but it's just a coincidence that it aligns with what we want.

[pphysch]

> but it's just a coincidence that it aligns with what we want.

I agree with your comment, but I think it is naïve to assume that Apple does PR by happenstance. Effective marketing/messaging is the bedrock of their business strategy.

So yes they probably did this primarily for raw profit/power reasons, but the positive PR is a close secondary.

[leptons]

It's not happenstance. They planned this action. But, "A broken clock is right twice a day" applies here.

[germinalphrase]

iMessage and FaceTime are large parts of the Apple Ecosystem lock-in. What obvious profit motive (separate from PR) would removing them provide?

[ghusto]

It doesn't have to deal with compliance issues, which are not only getting more complicated, but also increasing in number.

"Sorry guv, I don't have the keys for that, so I'm not responsible for what went on as I couldn't have known".

Though the biggest money maker is the idea itself. Many believe that Apple is "on their side", and these kinds of plays re-enforce that. The moment it's more profitable to sell you out than "stand up for privacy", they'll do it.